Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Roman" data-source="post: 2065401" data-attributes="member: 1845">Yes, the discussion of nobility continues... At least we have agreed to adopt the rule I proposed on nobility loss being once per combat per opponent, so at least we have something semi-firm, even though even the interpretation of that can differ... I think that an issue of concern is the enormous spread of nobility within the party. The extremes range from Prince Hammoton with a nobility of 90(!!!!) to Prince Caius with a nobility of 20. I think a nice solution to this would be to make nobility at least in somewhat party-based. This makes sense, as nobility ought to depend at least in part on whom one associates with. So, if the party does something noble, everybody's nobility should go up and if something ignoble it should go down. Perhaps we could implement something like: If half or more of the party participates in an ignoble act, half of the lowest (or perhaps average) nobility loss applies even to those members of the party that did not participate in it (and vice versa for nobility gain). Of course, the noble actions of those individuals can offset the loss if they are particularly noble. This also has the advantage of encouraging the knights to go all out when faced with an opponent that might wipe out the party without teaming. Also, I think that all of the knights (perhaps excepting Prince Caius on 'humanitarian grounds' since this post facto loss of nobility would put him below the level required for a knight) should loose a further 8 points of nobility on top of what we already agreed on at the end of the session. We failed to prevent two noblewomen from dying (albeit only temporarily) - Lady Christine and Lady Andrea - that should be 4 nobility loss for each of the ladies who died for all knights (perhaps with the exception of Christine and Andrea <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) as we failed to protect them. As you can probably see, I am trying to argue for a system which encourages people to help prevent each other's deaths (death of a lady leads to nobility loss, so the knight has to choose whether to gang up on an opponent and lose nobiltity thusly or...) Hence I think the following further adjustments of nobility are in order: Sir Anton: -8 Sir Bradley: -8 Prince Hammoton: -8 The above should be the obvious ones. Now: Prince Caius: Hmm, he was engaged in another combat at the time, so he could be argued to be exempt on those grounds... but mostly I thnink it would be unfair to make him lose nobility below the level required for a knight post facto (since this was not the last combat where cheating occured it is post facto). Lady Andrea: No loss of nobility - she is the victim here Lady Christine: No loss of nobility - another victim Hubert: Not a knight, so probably only -4 nobility, but perhaps no loss if we apply the rule that a lady dying leads to nobility loss only to knights. Cassandra: A lady and a non-knight - probably should not lose nobility for this at all and if so it should certainly be lower loss than for most others. Hobb & the new priest (I don't remember his name): Hmm, they have gentleness and non-violence as part of their key nobility concepts, so they probably should not lose nobility for this or if so than less (perhaps -2 each) Lady Leane: No loss of nobility</blockquote>

Verification